Bombay High Court

Sahil Amin ShaikhversusState of maharashtra

Decided: 17 February 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: SHIVKUMAR DIGE

Holding

The bail application is rejected as the grounds raised are not new and the allegations are serious.

Summary

The Bombay High Court considered a bail application filed by Sahil Amin Shaikh, who is charged under IPC sections 354(c), 376(2)(n), 506 read with 34 and POCSO sections 4, 8 and 12 for allegedly sexually assaulting a minor by threatening her. The applicant argued that the victim was over 17 years old, that there was a consensual relationship, that the FIR was delayed, and that he had been in custody for over two years without trial progress. The prosecution contended that the allegations are serious and the applicant had previously been denied bail on the same grounds. The court observed that the grounds raised were not new, the prior bail denial was based on merit, and the seriousness of the offences precluded bail. Consequently, the court rejected the bail application.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite charges under IPC and POCSO statutes.
Whether delay in lodging the FIR, the alleged age of the victim, and prolonged pre‑trial detention constitute sufficient grounds for bail.
Whether the applicant can raise the same grounds after a prior bail application was rejected.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34, 354(c), 376(2)(n), 506
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 12, 4, 8

Subjects

bail
sexual assault
rape
criminal intimidation
POCSO
IPC
pre‑trial detention
age of victim
delay in FIR
common intention

Judgment

32-BA-3992-2025.doc

N.S.Kamble

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3992 OF 2025

Sahil Amin Shaikh … Applicant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra … Respondent
____________________________________________________________
Digitally signed
NILAM by NILAM
SANTOSH
SANTOSH KAMBLE Mr.H.D. More, for the Applicant.
KAMBLE Date: 2026.02.18
18:35:37 +0530
Mr.B.B. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent-State.
Ms.Kanchand Pawar, for Respondent No.2.
____________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 17th FEBRUARY 2026

P.C. :

. By this Application, the Applicant is seeking regular bail in

Crime No.750 of 2023 registered with Bhigwan Police Station, for the

offences punishable under Sections354(c), 376(2)(n), 506 read with Section

34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short) and Sections 4, 8 and 12

of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO’ for

short).

2. It is prosecution’s case that the Applicant sexually assaulted the

First Informant who was minor by threatening her.

Page 1 of 3
32-BA-3992-2025.doc

N.S.Kamble

3. It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that at the

time of incident, First Informant was more than 17 years old. There was

love affair between the Applicant and First Informant. There is delay in

lodging FIR. The Applicant is behind bars for more than two years. There

is no progress in trial, and requested to allow the Application.

4. The learned counsel for the Applicant relied on following

judgments :

(i) Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi V/s. The State of
Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No.4758 of 2024) decided
on 25th November 2024.
(ii) Balasaheb Ashok Kalbhor V/s. The State of
Maharashtra & Anr (Bail Application No.3430 of 2021
decided on 2nd May 2022)
(iii) Mohammed Ajaan Khan V/s. The State of
Maharashtra & Anr (Bail Application No.4621 of 2024
decided on 13th February 2025)
(iv) Ritik Suresh Millil V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors
(Bail Application No.2732 of 2024 decided on 7 th
February 2025).

5. It is contention of learned APP along with learned counsel for

Respondent No.2 that earlier bail application of the Applicant has been

rejected by this Court (Coram: N.J. Jamadar, J.) on 19 th December 2024.

Page 2 of 3
32-BA-3992-2025.doc

N.S.Kamble

The said Application is rejected on merit. Hence, this Application is not

maintainable. No new grounds are taken in the present Application and

requested to reject the Application.

6. I have heard all learned counsel’s. Perused charge-sheet and

documents produced on record.

7. It appears from record that this Court (Coram: N.J. Jamadar, J.)

by order dated 19th December 2024 has rejected Bail Application of the

Applicant. The remedy to the Applicant was to challenge the said order, but

the Applicant has come with new grounds. These new grounds are in fact

not new grounds i.e. delay in lodging FIR, age of the victim more than 17

years, these grounds were already aware to the Applicant, it can’t be

considered as new grounds. The Applicant is behind bars for more than two

years can't be a ground to grant bail as allegations against the Applicant are

serious.

8. I have gone through the case laws cited by the learned counsel for

the Applicant facts in cited case and the present case are different.

9. In view of above, I pass following order.

ORDER

(i) The Application is rejected.

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

Page 3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…